Hartsell, William F.

AbstractBackgroundData for proton therapy in high‐risk prostate cancer (HRPC) are limited. Using the Proton Collaborative Group prospective registry, we evaluated outcomes for HRPC patients treated with proton therapy.MethodsA totsl of 605 men with localized HRPC treated with proton therapy from 8/2009 to 3/2019 at nine institutions were selected. Outcomes examined included freedom from progression (FFP), metastasis free survival (MFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. Multivariable cox/binomial regression models were used to assess predictors of FFP and toxicity.ResultsMedian age was 71 years. Gleason grade groups 4 (49.4%) and 5 (31.7%) were most common, as were clinical stage T1c (46.1%) and cT2 (41.3%). The median pretreatment prostate specific antigen (PSA) was 9.18 and median International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was 6. Androgen deprivation therapy was given in 63.6%. Median dose was 79.2 GyE in 44 fractions. Pelvic lymph nodes were treated in 58.2% of cases. Pencil beam scanning was used in 54.5%, uniform scanning in 38.8%, and a rectal spacer in 14.2%. At a median followup of 22 months, the 3‐ and 5‐year FFP were 90.7% and 81.4%, respectively. Five‐year MFS and OS were 92.8% and 95.9%, respectively. Independent correlates of FFP included Gleason ≥8, PSA > 10, and cT2 (all p < 0.05). No grade 4 or 5 adverse events were reported. There were 23 (5%) grade 2 and 0 grade 3 gastrointestinal events. Prevalence of late grade 3, late grade 2, acute grade 3, and acute grade 2 genitourinary toxicity was 1.7%, 5.8%, 0%, and 21.8%, respectively. Prevalence of grade 2 and 3 erectile dysfunction at 2 years was 48.4% and 8.4%, respectively.ConclusionsIn the largest series published to date, our results suggest early outcomes using proton therapy for HRPC are encouraging for both safety and efficacy. Further evaluation is needed to determine if an advantage exists to use protons over other radiation techniques in this population.

Purpose: As patients with mediastinal lymphoma are typically young with curable disease, advanced radiation techniques such as proton therapy are often considered to minimize subacute and late toxicity. However, it is unclear which mediastinal lymphoma patients are treated with proton therapy. Within a prospective, multi-institutional proton registry, we characterized mediastinal lymphoma patients treated with proton therapy and assessed concordance with consensus recommendations published in 2018 by the International Lymphoma Radiation Oncology Group (ILROG). Methods: Eligible patients included those with lymphoma of the mediastinum treated exclusively with proton therapy for whom digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) treatment data were available for review. Given the challenge with reliably visualizing the left mainstem coronary artery, the inferior-most aspect of the left pulmonary artery (PA) was used as a surrogate. Extent of disease was characterized as upper mediastinum (above level of left PA), middle mediastinum (below left PA but at or above level of T8), or low mediastinum (below T8). Results: Between November 2012 and April 2019, 56 patients were treated and met inclusion criteria. Patients treated with proton therapy were young (median, 24 y; range: 12 to 88), with over half being female (55%). Patients were most commonly treated at initial diagnosis (86%) and had Hodgkin lymphoma (79%). Most patients (96%) had mediastinal disease that extended down to the level of the heart: 48% had middle and 48% had low mediastinal involvement. Nearly all patients (96%) met the ILROG consensus recommendations: 95% had lower mediastinal disease, 46% were young females, and 9% were heavily pretreated. Heart (mean) and lung dose (mean, V5, V20) were significantly associated with lowest extent of mediastinal disease. Conclusions: Mediastinal lymphoma patients treated with proton therapy are typically young with lower mediastinal involvement. Within a prospective, multi-institutional proton registry, nearly all treated patients fit the ILROG consensus recommendations regarding which mediastinal lymphoma patients may most benefit from proton therapy.

Abstract Background: Recent advances in radiotherapy techniques have allowed ablative doses to be safely delivered to inoperable liver tumors. In this setting, proton beam radiotherapy (PBT) provides the means to escalate radiation dose to the target volume while sparing the uninvolved liver. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of hypofractionated PBT for liver tumors, predominantly hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC).Methods: We evaluated the prospective registry of the Proton Collaborative Group for patients undergoing definitive PBT for liver tumors. Demographic, clinicopathologic, toxicity, and dosimetry information were compiled.Results: To date, 63 patients have been treated at 9 institutions between 2013-2019. Thirty (48%) had HCC and 25 (40%) had ICC. The median dose and biological equivalent dose (BED) delivered was 58.05 GyE (range, 32.5-75) and 80.5 GyE (range, 53.6-100), respectively. The median mean liver BED was 13.9 GyE. Three (4.8%) patients experienced at least one grade ³3 toxicity. With median follow-up of 5.1 months (range, 0.1-40.8), the local control (LC) rate at 1 year was 91.2% for HCC and 90.9% for ICC. The 1-year LC was significantly higher (95.7%) for patients receiving BED greater than 75.2 GyE than for patients receiving BED of 75.2 GyE or lower (84.6%, p = 0.029). The overall survival rate at 1 year was 65.6% for HCC and 81.8% for ICC. Conclusions: Hypofractionated PBT results in excellent LC, sparing of the uninvolved liver, and low toxicity, even in the setting of dose-escalation. Higher dose correlates with improved LC, highlighting the importance of PBT especially in patients with recurrent or bulky disease.

Abstract Background: Recent advances in radiotherapy techniques have allowed ablative doses to be safely delivered to inoperable liver tumors. In this setting, proton beam radiotherapy (PBT) provides the means to escalate radiation dose to the target volume while sparing the uninvolved liver. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of hypofractionated PBT for liver tumors, predominantly hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC).Methods: We evaluated the prospective registry of the Proton Collaborative Group for patients undergoing definitive PBT for liver tumors. Demographic, clinicopathologic, toxicity, and dosimetry information were compiled.Results: To date, 63 patients have been treated at 9 institutions between 2013-2019. Thirty (48%) had HCC and 25 (40%) had ICC. The median dose and biological equivalent dose (BED) delivered was 58.05 GyE (range, 32.5-75) and 80.5 GyE (range, 53.6-100), respectively. The median mean liver BED was 13.9 GyE. Three (4.8%) patients experienced at least one grade ³3 toxicity. With median follow-up of 5.1 months (range, 0.1-40.8), the local control (LC) rate at 1 year was 91.2% for HCC and 90.9% for ICC. The 1-year LC was significantly higher (95.7%) for patients receiving BED greater than 75.2 GyE than for patients receiving BED of 75.2 GyE or lower (84.6%, p = 0.029). The overall survival rate at 1 year was 65.6% for HCC and 81.8% for ICC. Conclusions: Hypofractionated PBT results in excellent LC, sparing of the uninvolved liver, and low toxicity, even in the setting of dose-escalation. Higher dose correlates with improved LC, highlighting the importance of PBT especially in patients with recurrent or bulky disease.

Aim/Objectives/Background: The American College of Radiology (ACR) and the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) have jointly developed the following practice parameter for proton beam radiation therapy. Proton radiotherapy is the application of a high-energy proton beam to a patient in a clinical setting with therapeutic intent. Proton radiotherapy may permit improved therapeutic ratios with lower doses to sensitive normal structures and greater dose to target tumor tissues. Methods: A literature search was performed to identify published articles regarding clinical outcomes, reviews, quality assurance methodologies, and guidelines and standards for proton radiation therapy. Selected articles are referenced in the text. The following recommendations are based on firsthand experiences of multiple clinical authorities who employ proton therapy and have been peer reviewed by experts at different practicing institutions. Results: This practice parameter is developed to serve as a tool in the appropriate application of this evolving technology in the care of cancer patients or other patients with conditions where radiation therapy is indicated. It addresses clinical implementation of proton radiation therapy, including personnel qualifications, quality assurance standards, indications, and suggested documentation. Conclusions: This practice parameter is a tool to guide technical use of proton therapy and does not assess the relative clinical indication of proton radiotherapy when compared with other forms of radiotherapy, but to focus on the best practices required to deliver proton therapy safely and effectively, when clinically indicated. Costs of proton treatments are high, and the economic costs of proton radiotherapy may also need to be considered.

Objective: The Pediatric Proton/Photon Consortium Registry (PPCR) is a comprehensive data registry composed of pediatric patients treated with radiation. It was established to expedite outcomes-based research. The attributes which allow the PPCR to be a successful collaboration are reviewed. Methods and materials: Current eligibility criteria are radiotherapy patients &lt; 22 years treated at one of the 15 US participating institutions. Detailed health and treatment data are collected about the disease presentation and treatment exposures, and annually thereafter, in REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture). DICOM (Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine) imaging and radiation plans are collected through MIM/MIMcloud. An optional patient-reported quality-of-life (PedsQL) study is administered at 10 sites. Results: Accrual started October 2012 with 2,775 participants enrolled as of 25 July 2019. Most patients, 62.0%, were treated for central nervous system (CNS) tumors, the most common of which are medulloblastoma (n = 349), ependymoma (n = 309), and glial/astrocytoma tumors (n = 279). The most common non-CNS diagnoses are rhabdomyosarcoma (n = 284), Ewing’s sarcoma (n = 153), and neuroblastoma (n = 130). While the majority of participants are US residents, 18.7% come from 36 other countries. Over 685 patients participate in the PedsQL study. Conclusions: The PPCR is a valuable research platform capable of answering countless research questions that will ultimately improve patient care. Centers outside of the USA are invited to participate directly or may engage with the PPCR to align data collection strategies to facilitate large-scale international research. Advances in knowledge: For investigators looking to carry out research in a large pediatric oncology cohort or interested in registry work, this paper provides an updated overview of the PPCR.